Get Company Profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context about data provenance (official registers, daily refresh) and the inclusion of a canonical URL. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond the structured metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by enrichment options, usage flow, and data source context. All sentences contribute useful information, though some content (e.g., listing data sections) overlaps with the schema and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and sibling tool context, the description covers the primary use case, opt-in fields, data sources, and post-search workflow. It does not fully elaborate on every parameter, but the schema fills that gap, making the description reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (75%), with descriptions for orgnr, fields, and owners. The description adds a concrete example for fields (['ip']) and explains the opt-in nature, but it does not clarify include_financial_metrics or add significant meaning beyond the schema. It is adequate but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a full-profile fetcher for a Norwegian company by orgnr, listing the key data sections (name, group structure, ownership, grants, announcements, financial metrics). It also positions itself as 'the primary show me this company tool', distinguishing it from the specialized sibling tools like get_company_ip and get_company_financials.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states to use after 'search_companies returns an orgnr', providing a clear workflow. It mentions opt-in fields for deeper enrichment, but does not explicitly mention alternative specialized sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.